Just wanted to say +1 and that I added this to the cliffs/details thread.

The idea of players going in person to the IoM to discuss the changes is questionable. It just seems like a planned ambush. Stars lays out a mountain of talking points and cherry picks a ton of favorable data all sexed up with a skilled relations employee who's job is to present this sort of data in a convincing fashion to people who are going to be a much tougher crowd than a handful of online poker pros.

I don't even understand what is supposed to be such sensitive information. Presumably they'd like to keep this information away from competitors but all we're talking about is rake paid by various groups. This information is publicly available from a site like PTR if somebody is sufficiently motivated to purchase the hands and run the queries. It's not exactly top secret.

If Stars can defend their position they should do so openly. If there is a specific reason they do not want to provide certain data they should make that known.

No-one who plays micros?

imo a list of nominated people should be given special privalidges to post in a locked thread and have a dialogue with stars.

this way we are all able to see what happens and the representatives can also gauge the wider 2+2ers opinions.

this is the only fair way imo

wrt having this public/private with or without NDAs:

If we can have an appropriate number of reps for each game category, I am fine with private discussions if the overall dynamic is as follows:

• NDA is regarding Stars private financials only.
• Reps are allowed to come back and tell us what they asked for and what Stars denied, countered or accepted.
• Reps, although perhaps being barred from giving a specific reason in some situations, are allowed to come back and tell us if, in their judgement, counter offers or denials are reasonable or not due to Stars' financial situation.

So that is to say if the negotiation must remain private I will not be happy if the reps come back and say "Sorry guys, they're not giving us that. Full stop."

But, I will trust the reps and be fine with it if they are allowed to come back and say "Sorry guys, they're not giving us that and we now understand and believe that they truly can't," or "We're still fighting for ______ because we think Stars is FOS and are in a position to be able to fulfill this request."

If this type of dynamic is not acceptable to Stars then I def think it should remain public in a dedicated locked thread.

+1

but how do you know you'd lose more from the VIP program than you'd win in extra money 'won' at the tables b/c of the lowered rake?

like you auto-assume that if lowering the rake means you win x extra dollars per year in your table profits, then you definitely lose something >x in VIP program value. But where are the calculations that support this (or the opposite)? There aren't any so you actually have NO idea whether lower rake means u win enough at the tables to cover VPP value loss or not hence you can't possibly claim to have an idea as to which would be better.



also, the whole 'restricted participation thread' won't work IMO b/c it would just take soooo ****ing long to type out all the **** you'd say to ppl face to face. i mean jesus. plus, if someone asks an uncomfortable question online, u can take 20-30 mins to think up an answer, whereas face 2 face u gotta formulate a reply in 2-4 seconds.

I would volunteer to go on behalf of 2p2 and the PLO community.

STARS, WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT CHANGE BACK TO DEALT TO APPEASE THE MINDLESS NIT ROBOTS, WC IS WAY MORE FAIR FOR EVERYONE AND IF THIS HAPPENS YOU WILL HAVE A SIT OUT THE LIKES OF WHICH YOU CANNOT EVEN FATHOM.

Thank you

+1 for lowering the rake and/or increasing multipliers, obv...

Since I've been mentioned by a few people, I'm going to officially throw my hat in the ring to be a representative to talk to Stars on behalf of the community about the recent changes to rake and the VIP program.

I greatly prefer that this whole thing can be taken care of online because frankly I don't see much reason to delay this any longer by figuring out the logistics of flying a bunch of people to the Isle of Man for in person discussions. I also prefer that this discussion be as transparent to the public as possible, but I do understand and can imagine some reasons why Stars may want to keep certain details private.

I have very little desire to fly to the IOM at all, but would do so if that's all Stars was willing to offer us. I've been so disappointed with their handling of the entire situation thus far, especially the lack of communication, and I feel well qualified to articulate our opinions and concerns.

I hope it does not come to that and I hope that we can talk with Stars about this online, in public, and as soon as possible.

Here's a brief history of my poker playing career.

- Online pro for 7 years
- Limit Hold'em player ($2/4-$30/60 6max) for 2 years
- NLHE player ($2/4-$10/20 6max) for 4 years
- Current PLO player ($.50/1.00 - $3/6 6max) and recent convert in the last year
- Have played on all major sites including Stars, FTP, Party, iPoker, OnGame, and AP
- Never been a SNE, ~250k VPPs with 6 months of playing time last year
- Was going to go for SNE (in addition to playing on other sites) in 2012 before changes were made

I have a broad background, have played a lot of different games and stakes, and understand the effects of rake greatly. I have experience 4 tabling and 24 tabling.

My basic position is that we need to keep the amount of rewards that Stars is distributing to the game the same as it currently is now for the health of the poker economy. And by rewards, I mean $$$, not VPPs. I definitely lose on the switch to WC vs. dealt, but I don't mind that if Stars uses the money saved by that move and pumps it back into the poker economy. I am NOT convinced that they are planning to do that currently and a money grab is completely unacceptable and why so many of us are so angry.

There are any number of ways to fix this problem: a rake reduction, a VPP multiplier bump, an FPP multiplier bump, an FPP value bump, or any combination of these or other solutions proposed by the smart people in this thread.

It is of utmost importance, that all game types currently running are protected and receive their fair share of this redistribution. Rake cuts for micros, Limit Hold'em's incremental rake structure, full rings VPP multiplier. These are all things that do not affect me, but they cannot be forgotten in discussions with Stars.

Even if you personally do not lose money (or don't lose much) with the change to Weighted Contributed, I hope you can see that the removal of rakeback rewards to fellow players - grinders and fish alike - is bad for the game in the same way a rake increase is bad for the game. We have to fight to keep the poker economy healthy!

All I can offer is the ability to be fair, level-headed, and to clearly communicate our concerns with Stars. I am absolutely amazed by the ability of the poker community to rally together around a cause such as this which affects all of our livelihoods, and I would be honored to be a part of it.

I am also OK with the community deciding on other people to represent them, because frankly this is going to be a lot of work and take a lot of my time up. I wouldn't volunteer if I wasn't very passionate about this.

WE WILL NOT STOP THIS SITOUT UNLESS STARS DELAYS THE CHANGES UNTIL AFTER HOLDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH US

I want to re-iterate that Stars needs to explain WHY they need to bring representatives to the Isle of Man instead of having this conversation online (whether public or not). This seems an awful lot like a delay tactic and if that is true, it is unacceptable. I don't want to just to conclusions though so Steve please respond to this question!.

We also need to ensure that NO CHANGES ARE MADE until after negotiations have completed! Doing otherwise, isn't a fair negotiation and WON'T STOP THE SITOUT!

More important to me than who represents us are these two points!

I vote Iggyping!

Very much agree with this. If you are open to negotiations with players it should come by delaying the changes until after they are complete. Implementing a flawed system for however long it takes to come to a good compromise is NOT acceptable.

This.

They just want to buy time with the lame promos until they release ¨Blitz¨ or w/e its name is and generate loads of loads of tons of rake imo. Was the rake in RushPoker the same as the normal tables @ FT?

Rake is bad as it is for "Casual" players, iv played 3,055 hands this month heads up 50NL, and been raked 162.87, more than 1/4 of my overall winnings - I can't even qualify for a 25$ bonus cause I don't have enough fpps.

To add to that the only reload bonus I've seen in the past 6 months has been for a measly 7$ sng STT ticket ( I'm open to correction on that one )

I saw my name mentioned a few times (which humbles me greatly), so I'll respond to this.

My view on this situation is that Pokerstars is a business. They want to make money, they need to make money to survive, and it is very likely that the vast majority of their gross revenue goes to business expenses like support, advertising, and software development, not to greedy pockets. I believe stars puts a lot of effort into a high quality product, and I appreciate that.

On the other side though, are the players. Professional players need income to survive and play, and non-professional players would like to be able to win at the game, or, at the very least, go longer between deposits and get more "bang for their buck."

Games have gotten tough. Gaps between player skill have closed significantly, and rake always puts a significant amount of pressure on players. We are at a point in online poker where even very strong players stand to make 1 or 2bb/100, and many games/stakes flirt with playability, because the closing of skill gaps mixed with the rake threatens to create games where an unrealistically small number of players (if any at all) can win.

As a result, players feel they need to cling to what little win rate or rewards they have.

I believe the day our games have no long term winners is the end of poker, effectively turning poker into a casino table game offering with little difference between poker and craps or baccarat.

I want poker to survive, so I believe it is a players responsibility to fight for a sustainable poker ecosystem. One where tenacious professionals can squeeze out a living, amateurs can test their mettle while working to become a long term winner, and gamblers can have a great time, splash around, and just maybe strike it rich.

I believe that it is the players responsibility to make sure that ecosystem stays intact, and then it is on the poker site to figure out how to give us that opportunity while executing a successful business model. I hope there's room in the poker world for all of us, grinder, amateur, gambler, and room owner alike.

* * *

Some extra information and disclosure.

I play mostly 1/2 and 2/4 CAP games. I believe all players should have sustainable games that they enjoy. However, I am far more qualified to speak about the specifics of what that looks like in cap games than in other forms of poker. I seek to understand the table climate in all games, but my personal experience is lacking in some cases.

I don't mass table, but I am a Supernova. My preference is usually to play around six tables, moving up as high as nine when I feel like I can handle it. I plan to attempt Supernova Elite in 2012, but I am not sure if it is a realistic goal for me (if I had been playing full time throughout all of 2011, I would have made about 600-700K VPPs).

I am a 29 year old American who worked in South Korea as an English teacher, then decided to start playing poker professionally and move to Canada (rather than back to the USA) in light of the events of Black Friday.

If I was in fact invited to the Isle of Man, I'm not sure how I would travel. I'm not sure if it's industry standard to have expenses paid for or not, but the $1600 airfare plus food and lodging would not be an insignificant sum to me and I would have to examine my finances before committing to the trip. If those expenses were covered I would participate without hesitation. However, in either case, I will totally buy a new shirt for the occasion, as showing up in the Pokerstars.com sweatshirt that I like wearing most is a bit too fanboy for me.

In the event that anyone from Pokerstars would like my input but travel could not be arranged, I am reachable by e-mail, telephone, or Skype as well as my presence on 2+2, and I am happy to assist in any way possible.

Would a skype conference call be a solution? You also could record this and publish it on 2+2, so everyone can listen to it.

When people only speak when they are asked and a moderator is taking care of it, it could be useful.

great man, thanks for letting us know

I presume that a fair and honest negotiation would involve a lot of fairly sensitive information, minor percentage points, and the signing of a NDA just for starters. I'd love to have the discussion out in the open, but a fully open, real time discussion via internet forum is pretty unwieldy.


I agree that if changes are made, Pokerstars will have to face the consequences of those changes (read: having negotiations in progress will not stop a sit out if stars implements its changes anyway).

My nominations so far:

Mods: MSauce and Steve D
Numbers Tzar: TheMetetrown
NLHE: Ricepaw
FLHE: CoreySteel
Cap: Starvingwriter

Sure, if Stars is willing to share sensitive information for this, then I agree.

I spoke with Steve via PM about LHE and as it stands the only difference will be a move to WC from Dealt. This I see as no problem to the game per say except there will be no games running. This is a problem for Pstars and for soon to be former regs.

The reality is for this game we need to see the numbers on what a 11/9 FRLHE SNE at 3-6 actually pays to Pstars and compare it to SNE benefits. If it's found that he is effectively getting 90% rb then I see the need to move to contributed. But if the percentage of dealt hands includes players doing this is small then there is no need for change. This is why a breakdown of these types of players must be compared to the looser regs and at what VIP status they are all playing at to gauge the profit of both Stars and Players.


Right now the games are virtually unbeatable for a mass grinder who has no time to seat select/table select without rb. We are talking about a 1bb/100 for the best FRLHE players and a 2bb/100 hands for the best 6 max players who mass multitable. If the current regs (and this must be 80% plus are breakeven/slightly losing players) are going to take a projected rb % hit of 20-45 percent as some people have posted then there is a serious problem and the game will actually die.

I'd like to see a few options implimented as proposed changes.

1) vpp multiplier to 6x for 6 max LHE.

2) I'd like to see a rake cap of $1.50 for 2-4 games when the pot hits $40

3) I'd like to see a rake cap of $2.00 for 3-6 games when the pot hits $40

4) I'd like to see a rake cap of $2.50 for 5-10 games when the pot hits $70

These changes are not drastic as the scenarios I've suggested only occur rarely but would help a little.

Selecting community reps is nice and dandy, dont get me wrong.
But what sort of timeframe are we talking about?

If we see a resolution in 8 weeks, thats frankly not good enough when your VIP system is forcing a player to plan ahead for a whole calendar year.
And none of this is our fault when you spring those changes on us 3 days before the year is out :/

I would be happy to represent the low limit 6 max holdem guys. I generally play between 0.50/1 to 2/4 limit holdem.

If you want someone to go along and tell it how it is in a calm and eloquent manner then I'd be happy to go. Been playing at Stars since 2003 and I understand the concerns and issues that us 6 max limit guys face.